2021 (3) TMI 777 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - credit denied on the premise as per Notification No. 02/14-CE (N.T) dt. 20.01.2014, the appellant was not entitled to avail credit prior to the Notification No. 02/14 (N.T) dt. 20.01.2014 in terms of Notification No. 01/10-CE dt. 06.02.2010 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - There is no provision in law for the appellant to file invoices before the department in time. In these circumstances, it is found that as the assessee was allowed credit by the adjudicating authority although the revenue has filed appeal against those orders before the Commissioner (Appeals). Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - In these circumstances, when the adjudicating authorities are having a divergent view, the extended period of limitation is not invokable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation, therefore, the denial of credit is barred by limitation. The show cause notice issued to the appellant is barred by limitation - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of credit to the appellant based on Notification No. 02/14-CE (N.T) and Notification No. 01/10-CE.
2. Applicability of the extended period of limitation for the show cause notice issued.
3. Verification of invoices and the supplier's benefit under the notification in question.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the denial of credit due to Notification No. 02/14-CE (N.T) and Notification No. 01/10-CE. The appellant, located in Jammu & Kashmir, availed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 01/10-CE dated 06.02.2010. The Revenue contended that the appellant was not entitled to credit during February 2010 to January 2014. After Notification No. 02/14-CE (N.T) dated 20.01.2014, the appellant could avail credit. The appellant's credit was denied, leading to the appeal.

2. The appellant argued that the show cause notice issued on 30.05.2017, invoking the extended period of limitation, was time-barred. Citing precedents like Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs. CCE, Noida and Saraswati Agro Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Jammu, the appellant claimed entitlement to cenvat credit during the impugned period. The appellant contested the invocation of the extended period of limitation based on these grounds.

3. The Authorized Representative reiterated the Commissioner (Appeals) findings, highlighting that the appellant did not produce invoices or verify if suppliers benefited from the notification. The department invoked the extended period of limitation for this reason. The Tribunal, without delving into the case's merits, focused on the limitation issue. It noted that the appellant was allowed credit by the adjudicating authority, despite revenue appeals. Considering divergent views and precedents, the Tribunal held that the extended limitation period was inapplicable. Citing the cases of Saraswati Agro Chemical (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Dharampal Satyapal Limited, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order due to limitation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the show cause notice time-barred, leading to the denial of credit being barred by limitation. The appellant's appeal was allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing the importance of limitation in such cases.